Exam Notes on Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Rachels' Arguments Against Free Will

Rachels presents several arguments challenging the concept of free will:

Determinism

Determinism- Everything that happens within it is the result of prior causes, and that once the causes occur the effects must inevitably follow, given the surrounding circumstances and the .

• Vivid Expression: If a supremely intelligent observer knew the exact location and velocity of every particle in the universe, they could predict everything, including human actions. Tracing causes back far enough, this observer could have predicted your choice of shirt color today even before you were born.

Argument from Psychology

This argument suggests that if we apply scientific methods to human behavior, we must assume lawful and determined behavior. By discovering the conditions that cause certain actions, we can anticipate and even determine human actions.

Genes and Behavior

This argument emphasizes the role of genetics in predisposing individuals to certain behaviors. Children may be born with "difficult" temperaments characterized by:

• Activity

• Impulsivity

• Aggression

• Quickness to anger

• A tendency to get bored easily and seek excitement

• Lack of fear of getting hurt

• Insensitivity to others' feelings

• Often a muscular build

• A slightly lower than average IQ

These characteristics have a significant genetic component. Studies on twins, like the one in Minnesota, highlight the similarities in habits and mannerisms, suggesting a strong influence of nature, though these twins often had prior contact.

Consequence Argument and Beebee's Objection

P2 of the Consequence Argument states: "If determinism is true, then James wasn’t able to do otherwise than add the chili."

Beebee challenges this premise by discussing different types of abilities and constraints:

• Narrow Ability: An ability you retain over time (e.g., riding a bike).

• Wide Ability: A narrow ability and the opportunity to use it.

• External Constraints: External forces that prevent you from doing something (e.g., physical force).

• Internal Constraints: Psychological impediments (e.g., fear, doubts).

Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) asserts that a person is morally responsible for their actions only if they could have done otherwise.

Frankfurt's Objection to the PAP

Frankfurt uses scenarios involving Jones to challenge the PAP:

Jones 3

Jones is going to perform an action regardless, but he is aware of a threat. Even if he initially intends to do it for his own reasons, the threat will force him to do it if he changes his mind. His responsibility arises because he reasoned to do it anyway, for his own reasons.

Jones 4

Jones has already decided to act. Unbeknownst to him, someone is watching him, ready to intervene only if Jones hesitates. If Jones acts without hesitation, the observer does nothing. If Jones hesitates, the observer will force Jones to complete the action. Even though Jones is unaware of the potential intervention, if he completes the action on his own volition, he is morally responsible. However, if the observer forces him, he is not. Because Jones wasn't aware of the threat, he acted as freely as he knew, thus he is morally responsible, unless the stranger acted upon him.

Frankfurt's Alternative to the PAP

Frankfurt proposes that a person is not morally responsible for their actions if they did it only because they could not have done otherwise. For Frankfurt, the reasons have to cause the actions.

Weakness of Will (Akratic Actions) and Volitional Disorders

Irresistible Desires and Volitional Disorders: The Case of Fred

Consider Fred, who is too terrified to leave his house, even for his daughter's wedding next door.

• Fred could be morally responsible for not leaving his house, but only if this is because he is akratically staying home. In other words, if he has the ability to use his wide ability to overcome his fear, but he chooses not to.

• However, Fred would not be morally responsible for his agoraphobia itself.

• If Fred's agoraphobia is so severe that only his house being on fire would compel him to leave, he is not morally responsible for staying home.

Wolf's Theories of Self-Interest

Wolf discusses three theories of self-interest:

1. Hedonistic Theory: Focuses on the felt quality of your experience.

2. Preference Theory: Whatever you prefer is in your self-interest.

3. Objective List Theory: Some things contribute to a person's good independent of their subjective experience.

Wolf favors the Objective List Theory because meaningfulness is a non-derivative aspect of a good life, and its goodness does not result from it making us happy or simply satisfying our preferences.

Wolf's Definition of a Meaningful Life

A meaningful life is active engagement in projects of worth and arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness.